Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Variability of spinal instrumentation configurations in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Surgical instrumentation for the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a complex procedure involving many difficult decisions (i.e. spinal segment to instrument, type/location/number of hooks or screws, rod diameter/length/shape, implant attachment order, amount of rod rotation, etc.). Recent advances in instrumentation technology have brought a large increase in the number of options. Despite numerous clinical publications, there is still no consensus on the optimal surgical plan for each curve type. The objective of this study was to document and analyse instrumentation configuration and strategy variability. Five females (12–19 years) with AIS and an indication for posterior surgical instrumentation and fusion were selected. Curve patterns were as follows: two right thoracic (Cobb: 34°, 52°), two right thoracic and left lumbar (Cobb T/L: 57°/45°, 72°/70°) and 1 left thoraco-lumbar (Cobb: 64°). The pre-operative standing postero-anterior and lateral radiographs, supine side bending radiographs, a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the spine, pertinent 3D measurements as well as clinical information such as age and gender of each patient were submitted to six experienced independent spinal deformity surgeons, who were asked to provide their preferred surgical planning using a posterior spinal approach. The following data were recorded using the graphical user interface of a spine surgery simulator (6×5 cases): implant types, vertebral level, position and 3D orientation of implants, anterior release levels, rod diameter and shape, attachment sequence, rod rotation (angle, direction), adjustments (screw rotation, contraction/distraction), etc. Overall, the number of implants used ranged from 11 to 26 per patient (average 16; SD ±4). Of these, 45% were mono-axial screws, 31% multi-axial screws and 24% hooks. At one extremity of the spectrum, one surgeon used only mono-axial screws, while at the other, another surgeon used 81% hooks. The selected superior- and inferior-instrumented vertebrae varied up to six and five levels, respectively (STD 1.2 and 1.5). A top-to-bottom attachment sequence was selected in 61% of the cases, a bottom-up in 29% and an alternate order in 11%. The rod rotation maneuver of the first rod varied from 0° (no rotation) to 140°, with a median at 90°. In conclusion, a large variability of instrumentation strategy in AIS was documented within a small experienced group of spinal deformity surgeons. The exact cause of this large variability is unclear but warrants further investigation with multicenter outcome studies as well as experimental and computer simulation studies. We hypothesize that this variability may be attributed to different objectives for correction, to surgeon’s personal preferences based on their previous experience, to the known inter-observer variability of current classification systems and to the current lack of clearly defined strategies or rational rules based on the validated biomechanical studies with modern multi-segmental instrumentation systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aubin CE, Descrimes JL, Dansereau J, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Labelle H (1995) Geometrical modeling of the spine and the thorax for the biomechanical analysis of scoliotic deformities using the finite element method (in French). Ann Chir 49(8):749–761

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Aubin CE, Petit Y, Stokes IA, Poulin F, Gardner-Morse M, Labelle H (2003) Biomechanical modeling of posterior instrumentation of the scoliotic spine. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 6:27–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barr SJ, Schuette AM, Emans JB (1997) Lumbar pedicle screws versus hooks. Results in double major curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 22:1369–1379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bridwell KH (1994) Surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: the basics and the controversies. Spine 19:1095–1100

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Burton DC, Asher MA, Lai SM (1999) The selection of fusion levels using torsional correction techniques in the surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 24:1728–1739

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen PQ (2003) Management of scoliosis. J Formos Med Assoc 102:751–761

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen PQ, Yen LJ (2001) A 8 to 13–year follow-up of Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation for the correction of King II and III adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. In: 21st annual combined meeting of the ASEAN and IOA, 2001, Bali

  8. Cummings RJ, Loveless EA, Campbell J, Samelson S, Mazur JM (1998) Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the system of King et al. for the classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:1107–1111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Delorme S, Petit Y, de Guise JA, Labelle H, Aubin CE, Dansereau J (2003) Assessment of the 3-D2 reconstruction and high-resolution geometrical modeling of the human skeletal trunk from 2-D radiographic images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 50:989–998

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferguson AB (1930) The study and treatment of scoliosis. South Med J 23:116–120

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goldstein LA (1964) The surgical management of scoliosis. Clin Orthop 35:95–115

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Goldstein LA (1971) The surgical management of scoliosis. Clin Orthop 77:32–56

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Halm H, Niemeyer T, Link T, Liljenqvist U (2000) Segmental pedicle screw instrumentation in idiopathic thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 9:191–197

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hamill CL, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Chapman MP, Blanke K, Baldus C (1996) The use of pedicle screw fixation to improve correction in the lumbar spine of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Is it warranted?. Spine 21:1241–1249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Harrington PR (1962) Treatment of scoliosis. Correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. Am J Orthop 44-A:591–610

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Harrington PR (1972) Technical details in relation to the successful use of instrumentation in scoliosis. Orthop Clin North Am 3:49–67

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Herring JA (2002) Tachdjian’s pediatric orthopedics. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 234–241

    Google Scholar 

  18. King HA, Moe JH, Bradford DS, Winter RB (1983) The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:1302–1313

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Knapp DR Jr, Price CT, Jones ET, Coonrad RW, Flynn JC (1992) Choosing fusion levels in progressive thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 17:1159–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee CK, Denis F, Winter RB, Lonstein JE (1993) Analysis of the upper thoracic curve in surgically treated idiopathic scoliosis. A new concept of the double thoracic curve pattern. Spine 18:1599–1608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Harms J, Lowe TG, Shufflebarger HL (1998) Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the classification of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:1097–1106

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Haher TR, Lapp MA, Merola AA, Harms J, Shufflebarger HL (2001) Multisurgeon assessment of surgical decision-making in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: curve classification, operative approach, and fusion levels. Spine 26:2347–2353

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Lowe TG, Blanke K (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1169–1181

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Blanke K (1992) Preventing decompensation in King type II curves treated with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Strict guidelines for selective thoracic fusion. Spine 17:S274–281

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Liljenqvist U, Lepsien U, Hackenberg L, Niemeyer T, Halm H (2002) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw and hook instrumentation in posterior correction and fusion of idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 11:336–343

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Liljenqvist UR, Allkemper T, Hackenberg L, Link TM, Steinbeck J, Halm HF (2002) Analysis of vertebral morphology in idiopathic scoliosis with use of magnetic resonance imaging and multiplanar reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A:359–368

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Liljenqvist UR, Halm HF, Link TM (1997) Pedicle screw instrumentation of the thoracic spine in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 22:2239–2245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Moe JH (1972) Methods of correction and surgical techniques in scoliosis. Orthop Clin North Am 3:17–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Nash CL Jr, Moe JH (1969) A study of vertebral rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:223–229

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nowakowski A, Labaziewicz L, Skrzypek H, Tobjasz F (1999) [Classification of the adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and preoperative strategy]. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 64:319–325

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Osebold WR, Yamamoto SK, Hurley JH (1992) The variability of response of scoliotic spines to segmental spinal instrumentation. Spine 17:1174–1179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Papin P, Arlet V, Marchesi D, Rosenblatt B, Aebi M (1999) Unusual presentation of spinal cord compression related to misplaced pedicle screws in thoracic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 8:156–9; discussion 160

    Google Scholar 

  33. Puno RM An KC, Puno RL, Jacob A, Chung SS (2003) Treatment recommendations for idiopathic scoliosis: an assessment of the Lenke classification. Spine 28:2102–2115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Richards BS, Birch JG, Herring JA, Johnston CE, Roach JW (1989) Frontal plane and sagittal plane balance following Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 14:733–737

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Richards BS, Sucato DJ, Konigsberg DE, Ouellet JA (2003) Comparison of reliability between the Lenke and King classification systems for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using radiographs that were not premeasured. Spine 28:1148–1156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Roye DP Jr, Farcy JP, Rickert JB, Godfried D (1992) Results of spinal instrumentation of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by King type. Spine 17:S270–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shufflebarger HL, Clark CE (1990) Fusion levels and hook patterns in thoracic scoliosis with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Spine 15:916–920

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Stokes IA, Bigalow LC, Moreland MS (1986) Measurement of axial rotation of vertebrae in scoliosis [published erratum appears in Spine 1991 May;16(5):599–600] [see comments]. Spine 11(3), 213–8. 1986

    Google Scholar 

  39. Suk SI, Kim WJ, Kim JH, Lee SM (1999) Restoration of thoracic kyphosis in the hypokyphotic spine: a comparison between multiple-hook and segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord 12:489–495

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Suk SI, Kim WJ, Lee CS, Lee SM, Kim JH, Chung ER, Lee JH (2000) Indications of proximal thoracic curve fusion in thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: recognition and treatment of double thoracic curve pattern in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with segmental instrumentation. Spine 25:2342–2349

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, Chung YJ, Park YB (1995) Segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 20:1399–1405

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Suk SI, Lee CK, Min HJ, Cho KH, Oh JH (1994) Comparison of Cotrel-Dubousset pedicle screws and hooks in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Int Orthop 18:341–346

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Wimmer C, Gluch H, Nogler M, Walochnik N (2001) Treatment of idiopathic scoliosis with CD-instrumentation: lumbar pedicle screws versus laminar hooks in 66 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 72:615–620

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Winter RB (1989) The idiopathic double thoracic curve pattern. Its recognition and surgical management. Spine 14:1287–1292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canada Research Chair Program, and by an unrestricted educational grant of Medtronic Sofamor Danek. Special thanks to Drs L. Lenke MD, T. Lowe MD, J. Emans MD, D. Sucato MD, T. Kuklo MD, and Mr. M. Robitaille.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechanical Engineering Department, Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Carl-Eric Aubin

  2. Research Center, Sainte-Justine University Hospital Center, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Carl-Eric Aubin, Hubert Labelle & Oana C. Ciolofan

Authors
  1. Carl-Eric Aubin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hubert Labelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oana C. Ciolofan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carl-Eric Aubin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aubin, CE., Labelle, H. & Ciolofan, O.C. Variability of spinal instrumentation configurations in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 16, 57–64 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0063-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0063-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation